### 73558 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

proposed AD would also require ground-run functional checks within every 1,000 operating hours. Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 1,420 engines installed in helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 30 minutes per engine to perform a check of the engine’s tachometer unit cycle counting feature and that an average of 320 checks would be required per year. Based on the average annual operating hours for an engine, a 1,000 operating hour functional check would not be required for at least one year. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. No parts would be required. Based on these figures, we estimate the average total cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to perform checks of the tachometer cycle counting unit for a year, is $19,312,000. Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA’s authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. ‘‘Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,’’ describes in more detail the scope of the Agency’s authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in ‘‘Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.’’ Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety. The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

**PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES** 

1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

**§ 39.13 [Amended]**

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Turbomeca S.A.: Docket No. FAA–2012– 1131; Directorate Identifier 2012–NE– 34–AD.
(a) Comments Due Date

We must receive comments by February 11, 2013.
(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

None. (c) Applicability

This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1A1, 1A2, 1B, 1C, 1C1, 1C2, 1D, 1D1, 1E2, 1K1, 1S, and 1S1 turboshaft engines that have incorporated Modification TU 207 or TU 243, or have incorporated Turbomeca Service Bulletin (SB) No. 292 80 0168 or SB No. 292 80 0190.
(d) Reason

This AD was prompted by detailed analysis and review of the accuracy of the engine’s tachometer cycle counting feature. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained engine failure and damage to the helicopter.
(e) Actions and Compliance

(1) During the post flight maintenance inspection after the last flight of each day, compare the cycles counted by the engine’s tachometer unit with the cycles counted by the primary counting method.

(2) If the numbers are different, use the primary counting method thereafter to determine all cycle counts. Do not use the values from the tachometer unit cycle counting feature.

(3) If the engine tachometer cycle counting feature remains accurate, then every 1,000 operating hours, perform a ground-run functional check of the tachometer unit cycle counting feature. If the counting feature fails the check, thereafter use only the primary cycle counting method to count cycles.

(4) If the tachometer is replaced, follow instructions in paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3) of this AD.
(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. (g) Related Information

(1) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjana Murthy, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781–238–7750; fax: 781–238–7199; email: sanjana.murthy@faa.gov.

(2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2012–0187, dated September 18, 2012, and Turbomeca S.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No. 292 80 0168 and SB No. 292 80 0190, for related information.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0) 5 59 74 40 00; telex: 570 042; fax: 33 (0) 5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 3, 2012. Colleen M. D’Alessandro, Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–29871 Filed 12–10–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 4910–13–P**

**COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY FOR THE**  **DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA**

**28 CFR Part 811**

**RIN 3225–AA10**

**Sex Offender Registration Amendments** 

**AGENCY :**  Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (‘‘CSOSA’’) is issuing a proposed rule to amend its current rule that sets forth procedures and requirements relating to periodic verification of registration information for sex offenders. The proposed rule, if finalized, would permit CSOSA to verify addresses of sex offenders by conducting home visits on its own accord and with its law enforcement


### 73559 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

partners. The proposed rule, if adopted, would also clarify the schedule for verifying home addresses, even for those sex offenders who are required to register but are not under CSOSA’s supervision.

**DATES :**  Submit comments on or before February 11, 2013. All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will be part of the public record and will be subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information such as social security numbers should not be included with your comments.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit comments to Office of the General Counsel, CSOSA, 633 Indiana Avenue, NW., Room 1380, Washington, DC 20004.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Rorey Smith, Deputy General Counsel, (202) 220–5797, or rorey.smith@csosa.gov. Questions about this publication are welcome, but inquiries concerning individual cases cannot be answered over the telephone.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  I. Background

CSOSA is responsible under the District of Columbia Sex Offender Registration Act of 1999, DC Law 13– 137, DC Official Code Sections 22–4001 et seq., for carrying out the sex offender registration functions in the District of Columbia, including verification of information maintained on sex offenders. In addition, the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, (Pub. L. 109–248), provides a comprehensive set of minimum standards for sex offender registration and notification in the United States. SORNA is designed to strengthen and increase the effectiveness of sex offender registration and notification for the protection of the public and to reduce the risk that sex offenders could evade registration requirements or the consequences of registration violations. This amendment will allow CSOSA to better meet the requirements of the District of Columbia Sex Offender Registration Act of 1999 and SORNA. II. Statutory Authority The District of Columbia Sex Offender Registration Act of 1999

The District of Columbia Sex Offender Registration Act of 1999, DC Law 13– 137, DC Official Code Sections 22–4001 et seq., grants CSOSA the authority to adopt and implement procedures and requirements for verification of address information and other information required for registration. The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)

The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, (Pub. L. 109–248), requires a sex offender to appear in person, allowing the jurisdiction to take a current photograph and verify the information in the sex offender registry on a scheduled frequency. Jurisdictions may require verification of registration information with greater frequency than that required by SORNA and may wish to include in their systems additional means of verification for registration information, such as mailing address verification forms to the registered residence address, requesting that the sex offender to sign and return a verification form, crosschecking information provided by the sex offender for inclusion in the registry against other records systems, and verifying home addresses through home visits.

Jurisdictions are required to notify appropriate law enforcement agencies of failures by sex offenders to comply with registration requirements, and such registration violations must be reflected in the sex offender registry. SORNA requires that jurisdictions and the appropriate law enforcement agencies take any appropriate action to ensure compliance. Federal law enforcement resources, including those of the United States Marshals Service, are permitted to assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending sex offenders who violate registration requirements. III. Request for Comments

CSOSA invites comments to address its proposed rule amending its existing rule, permitting CSOSA to: (1) Verify addresses of sex offenders by conducting home visits on its own accord and with its law enforcement partners, and (2) clarify the schedule for verifying home addresses, even for those sex offenders who are required to register but are not under CSOSA’s supervision. IV. Matters of Regulatory Procedure

Executive Order 12866

CSOSA has determined that this proposed rule is not a significant rule within the meaning of Executive Order
12866.

Executive Order 13132

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Under Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications requiring a Federalism Assessment. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

The rules will not cause State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector, to spend $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. No action under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 is necessary. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E– Congressional Review Act)

These rules are not ‘‘major rules’’ as defined by Section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 Subtitle E– Congressional Review Act), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The rules will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies. Moreover, these are rules of agency practice or procedure that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties, and do not come within the meaning of the term ‘‘rule’’ as used in Section 804(3)(C), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(C). Therefore, the reporting requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not apply. List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 811

Probation and parole.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia proposes to amend 28 CFR Part 811 as follows:

**PART 811 [AMENDED]**

1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 811 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: DC ST § 24–133 and the District of Columbia Sex Offender Registration Act of 1999, DC Law 13–137.

2. In § 811.9, revise paragraph (c) and add paragraph (e) to read as follows:


### 73560 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 238 / Tuesday, December 11, 2012 / Proposed Rules

1 On November 5, 2012, EPA initiated the comment period for this proposed insignificance determination on the Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) web site http://www.epa.gov/ otaq/stateresources/transconf/currsips.htm ) in order to allow for a full 30 day public comment period in conjunction with this proposed rulemaking action. **§ 811.9 Periodic verification of registration information.** 
* * * * *

(c) Quarterly or annually, as appropriate, CSOSA will send a certified letter with return receipt requested to the home of the sex offender.

* * * * *

(e) CSOSA, either on its own accord or with its law enforcement partners, will conduct home verifications of registered sex offenders pursuant to the following schedule:

(1) Semi-annually, at least every six months, for all registered Class A sex offenders without supervision obligation.

(2) Annually, for all registered Class B sex offenders without a supervision obligation.

(3) As directed by CSOSA and consistent with Agency policy for all Class A and B sex offenders with supervision obligation.

Dated: December 3, 2012 Nancy M. Ware, Director, CSOSA.
[FR Doc. 2012–29636 Filed 12–10–12; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 3129–01–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Parts 52 and 81**

**[EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0386; FRL- 9761–5]**

**Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West**  **Virginia; Redesignation of the West Virginia Portion of the Parkersburg**  **Marietta, WV–OH 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM**  2.5 **) Nonattainment Area to Attainment and**  **Approval of the Associated Maintenance Plan** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is proposing to approve a redesignation request and State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West Virginia. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) is requesting that the West Virginia portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta, WV–OH fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 )nonattainment area (ParkersburgMarietta Area or Area) be redesignated as attainment for the 1997 annual PM 2.5 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The Parkersburg-Marietta Area is comprised of Wood County and a portion of Pleasants County in West Virginia (West Virginia portion of the Area); and Washington County in Ohio. In this rulemaking action, EPA is proposing to approve the PM 2.5 redesignation request for the WestVirginia portion of the ParkersburgMarietta Area. EPA is also proposing to approve the maintenance plan SIP revision that the State submitted in conjunction with its redesignation request. The maintenance plan provides for continued attainment of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS for 10 years after redesignation of the West Virginia portion of the Area. The maintenance plan includes an insignificance determination for the on-road motor vehicle contribution of PM 2.5 , nitrogen oxides (NO X), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2) for the West Virginia portion of the Area for purposes of transportation conformity. EPA is proposing to find that West Virginia’s insignificance determination for transportation conformity is adequate. 1 EPA is also proposing to find that the Area continues to attain the standard. This action to propose approval of the 1997 annual PM 2.5 NAAQS redesignation request, maintenance plan, and insignificance determination for transportation conformity for the West Virginia portion of the Area is based on EPA’s determination that the Area has met the criteria for redesignation to attainment specified in the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA is taking separate action to propose redesignation of the Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta Area.

**DATES :**  Written comments must be received on or before January 10, 2013.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA– R03–OAR–2012–0386 by one of the following methods:

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

B. Email: mastro.donna@epa.gov C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2012–0386, Donna Mastro, Acting Associate Director, Office of Air Quality Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103.

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2012– 0386. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston, West Virginia 25304.